Who Could Have Won WWII?

[RN7]

Thank you for proving my point.

I just provided a list of available Allied Merchant shipping in 1939, I wasn't proving your point.

The Allies lost just under 22 million tons of shipping between 1939-45, and 17 million tons were lost in the Atlantic. Only the US and the British Commonwealth built new ships for the Allies during the war. The US built 34 million tons of shipping and the British Commonwealth built just over 9 million tons of shipping. Take out the US and you have an increasingly smaller and clapped out merchant fleet. Take out US Navy resources and you have a smaller Alllied naval fleet.

[RN7]

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2, or how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves, or a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. All you have done is quote the name of authors of books you say you have read or possess instead of giving a brief or detailed explanation as to whatever suits you. I don't know why you or for what reason you keep doing it but it would be helpful if you could just could answer what I asked you.

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

You could just state your position with some supporting argument and then quote an author as well.

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what

[QUOTE=aspqrz;68678] This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations

No not believing and not agreeing are two different thing. How about you just answer questions directly and then maybe quote one of your authors if you feel that you need to as its not a competition about who has read the most books.

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly

I've been collecting books for over 30 years and have compiled data for my own interest in the Second World War and other topics for as long. These days a lot of this information is also available on the internet. I'm comfortable with my numbers and I can give you a break down of losses by the month, tonnage and number for Allied and Axis merchant ship losses from 1939-45 if you want.

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I can't at this late hour remember the titles and authors of the other ones I
have, some are more technical and relate to naval orbats, ship types etc and some are small magazine articles long forgotten about but still in my attic or two.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Indeed I did.

However, I fail to what that specific claim has to do with whether the He-177 was a piece of crap or not. And, indeed, I am sure everyone following this thread is as mystified by the non-connection as I am.

Because, of course, there*is*no connection.

Originally posted by RN7
Well I think you are the only one who has claimed that. And if you can't see the connection with stating that British industry is beyond the range of German bombers, and yet then we have the He-177 with a combat radius of 1,540 km which can carry 6,000kg of ordinance internally and another 7,200 kg externally then I don't know what that says about your train of thought.

And I think the entire rest of the world is mystified by your train of thought in thinking that a piece of crap that was produced in small numbers at the tail end of the war had of being relevant when the overwhelmingly vast majority of Nazi bomber production was of Medium and Light Bombers which did not have the range to bomb all of the UK. And didn't have the capacity, either.

They produced thousands of He-111s, Do-17s and Ju-88s and ~600 of the failed He-177.

As for their payload vs. range. You are operating under the common, and charming, delusion that maximum range, or even maximum operational radius, was achievable with maximum bombload.

For operation Steinbock, and you evidently read, but failed to comprehend, the Wikipedia article, they carried 5600 kilos, not 13200 kilos.

You also failed to note, or comprehend, that they had a greater than 50% operational failure rate during that campaign 8 of the 14 (!) committed had to RTB with overheating or burning engines.

A monumental piece of crap.

If you're going to cite a source, at least read and comprehend it all.

You know they were used over Britain in Operation Steinbock in 1944 which was a failure. But from the most easily accessible source "wikipedia" the tactics used by the He-177 pilots allowed for higher speed and constant change of altitude which made interceptions difficult, increasing the survivability of the aircraft but decreased accuracy. With an average loss rate of 60% for all types of bomber used in Operation Steinbock, the He 177's loss rate below 10% made them the most survivable bomber in the campaign.

Um.

Ah.

From the Wikipedia article

oeOf the 14 He 177 sent out during*Operation Steinbock, one suffered a burst tire, and eight returned with overheating or burning engines. Of the four that reached London, one was lost to night fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

Perhaps you didn't actually read the article, or perhaps you felt that no-one else would or maybe you're just doing what the Soviets did so well

I think the rest of the world would regard operational failure by 8 of the 14 brand new aircraft committed to be indicative.

And, of the four that managed to reach the target, carrying less than half the maximum bomb load (against London, mind, not the far north of England unless you seriously expect us to believe that they could have carried more over a longer range), they suffered 25% casualties.

Like massaging figures much*

Quote:

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
He-111:*Combat Radius with Bombload (4400 kg), ~600 klicks.
Ju-88:*Combat Radius with Bombload (2100 kg), ~832 klicks.
Do-17:*Combat Radius with Bombload (1000 kg), ~660 klicks.

These were the*actual*'bombers' (for want of a better term) the Luftwaffe had. None had the range needed. As I said. Your attempts to bring in furphies like the*disastrous*failure that was the He-177 and the Ar-234 which,*despite your claims, did*not*have the required range, notwithstanding.

Note that they*all*fail to have the range to reach all of the UK.

Originally posted by RN7
He-111: Combat radius 1,200 km with a bombload (2,000 kg), less with heavier bombload*
JU-88A: Combat radius 1,046 km with a bombload (2,000 kg), less with heavier bombload
Do-17: Combat radius 1,160 km with a bombload (500 kg), less with heavier bombload

I hear an echo.

And a failure to understand.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
It existed as a failure. It existed so late in the war as to be irrelevant.

And, most importantly of all, and I note you*carefully*snipped this pertinent fact from your reply,*it did not have the range that you claimed.*

It could*not*reach the whole of the UK.

What exactly did I snip. If you mean the range of the Arado Ar 234 Then its combat radius was 1,100 km with a bombload of (1,500 kg).

What exactly did you snip

Oh, only the claim that it had a range of 1556 km.

Now down to 1100 km and still wrong.

The actual operational radius was 800 klicks.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Nowhere near enough. The UK bought almost all of it up, pricing Germany out of the market. Lack of Tungsten does not equal no Tungsten.

Something you would no doubt be aware of if you have done any research are the following facts ...

* The Squeeze Bore AT gun production was ended and widespread use also ceased as early as 1942 because the barrel and ammo required tungsten.

* Production of Tungsten cored AT ammo ceased around 1942 for the same reason

* The specific reason was (see Tooze,*"Wages of Destruction") that Germany did not have enough even for industrial use (it was required for high speed machine tools vital for producing a lot of stuff like, oh, Tanks, Artillery, Smallarms, Submarines, Aircraft etc) and stockpiles were declining faster than the limited amounts smuggled in from Portugal and Spain could replace.

Originally posted by RN7
How do you know what secretive and fascist Spain and Portugal was secretly shipping to Nazi Germany

Oh deer. How do I know these things

I read them in Books.

Hint: WW2 ended in 1945.

The Fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal have been gone for several decades.

The things they kept semi-secret during the war are now readily accessible in books that have been published since then. Many of which I have read or consulted.

Perhaps it might be an idea if you widened your reading list

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
In any case, it explains the inconvenient fact that German Jet aircraft were ineffective toys in a strategic and operational sense (if not an immediate tactical sense) due to their pathetic engines ... and were always going to remain so.

Originally posted by RN7
But lethal ones all the same, and jets rapidly replaced turbo-props as frontline military aircraft in the mid-to-late 1940's.

Well, Jets certainly were lethal. Just not German ones.

What happened after WW2 is nice, but irrelevant. As you well know.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Um. Logical error here. Operational Range does not change according to where an aircraft is based ... it is*fixed. It remains 800 klicks regardless of whether it is based in Berlin, or Paris, or Boulogne.

The quote I was replying to, carefully excised by you, was oeAlso is there some reason why you feel that you have to lecture people about military terms or is it that you just feel that you have a monopoly on knowledge* oe

Originally posted by RN7
But distance does change due to location, and an aircraft based in occupied France and the Netherlands would be a shorter distance from Britain than an aircraft based in Germany and that parameter would be relevant to the respective operational range in question.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to what their operational range was your claim was that, with the fantasy ranges you cited, they could reach all of the UK you didn't specify from which bases.

And the actual combat radius half the combat range (or less) well, you're still quoting the combat range (the one way range) rather than the combat radius (the there and back to base range) you still haven't grasped it.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Nope. All German late war production figures are heavily doctored by Speer. He deliberately double counted, counted remanufactured or repaired wrecked airframes as new production, included the last week of the previous month's production and the first week of the next month's production for a given month's production routinely (double counting again) ... as is detailed in a number of works on the German War Economy (see the work by*Tooze*mentioned above).

His deliberate obfuscation of records was so thorough that, though we know he was doing it and we know the scale of what he was doing, we cannot work out how much of the claimed production was real and how much was a lie. We just know that the figures for 44-45 are so tainted as to be close to worthless.

I've also heard that been stated about Speer in the past and as you say that we just don't know what the real figure are the best way to gauge the true figures would be to go by casualties ...

Twaddle.

ROTFLMAO level twaddle.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly failed to grasp that.

Originally posted by RN7
No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2.

Um.

What part of 'pretty much everything' was unclear as an answer

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally posted by RN7
Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
As for whether people are as well read as I or not,*I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what

I have no idea whether you are well read or not.

I post the cites partly so anyone and everyone can check that they say what I have said they say and in the hope that they actually read them to ascertain just that.

Whether you know or don't know anything is neither here nor there with regards to the cites

I have provided them since you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Originally Posted by RN7
I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly

Um.

The bits specifically mentioned

I've highlighted them in bold text to be helpful.

Phil

[RN7]

And I think the entire rest of the world is mystified by your train of thought in thinking that a piece of crap that was produced in small numbers at the tail end of the war had of being relevant when the overwhelmingly vast majority of Nazi bomber production was of Medium and Light Bombers which did not have the range to bomb all of the UK. And didn't have the capacity, either.

They produced thousands of He-111s, Do-17s and Ju-88s and ~600 of the failed He-177.

But I thought they built 1,168 He-177's from 1942.

As for their payload vs. range. You are operating under the common, and charming, delusion that maximum range, or even maximum operational radius, was achievable with maximum bombload.

Nope

For operation Steinbock, and you evidently read, but failed to comprehend, the Wikipedia article, they carried 5600 kilos, not 13200 kilos.

You also failed to note, or comprehend, that they had a greater than 50% operational failure rate during that campaign 8 of the 14 (!) committed had to RTB with overheating or burning engines.

A monumental piece of crap.

If you're going to cite a source, at least read and comprehend it all.



Um.

Ah.

From the Wikipedia article

oeOf the 14 He 177 sent out during*Operation Steinbock, one suffered a burst tire, and eight returned with overheating or burning engines. Of the four that reached London, one was lost to night fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

Perhaps you didn't actually read the article, or perhaps you felt that no-one else would or maybe you're just doing what the Soviets did so well

I think the rest of the world would regard operational failure by 8 of the 14 brand new aircraft committed to be indicative.

And, of the four that managed to reach the target, carrying less than half the maximum bomb load (against London, mind, not the far north of England unless you seriously expect us to believe that they could have carried more over a longer range), they suffered 25% casualties.

Like massaging figures much*

And I did say failed did I not and I never stated what payload they were carrying, but they did reach their target.

Quote:

I hear an echo.

And a failure to understand.

What exactly did you snip

Oh, only the claim that it had a range of 1556 km.

Now down to 1100 km and still wrong.

The actual operational radius was 800 klicks.

Not from my sources

Oh deer. How do I know these things

I read them in Books.

Hint: WW2 ended in 1945.

The Fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal have been gone for several decades.

The things they kept semi-secret during the war are now readily accessible in books that have been published since then. Many of which I have read or consulted.

Perhaps it might be an idea if you widened your reading list].

But they where still in existence in the Second World War. And yes you can find this information online too its not that hard

Well, Jets certainly were lethal. Just not German ones.

What happened after WW2 is nice, but irrelevant. As you well know.

The quote I was replying to, carefully excised by you, was oeAlso is there some reason why you feel that you have to lecture people about military terms or is it that you just feel that you have a monopoly on knowledge* oe


Which is, of course, irrelevant to what their operational range was your claim was that, with the fantasy ranges you cited, they could reach all of the UK you didn't specify from which bases.

And the actual combat radius half the combat range (or less) well, you're still quoting the combat range (the one way range) rather than the combat radius (the there and back to base range) you still haven't grasped it.


Twaddle.

ROTFLMAO level twaddle.

Phil

Well I think Raellus was right about you.

[RN7]

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

No they don't

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young (1989)
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen (1972)
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor*
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair*
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill (1954)
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD*(1946)
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I've highlighted the ones that may be relevant.

The specific sources for losses that I used ...

The U-Boat Offensive: 1914-45 by VE Tarrant (Arms & Armour Press, 1989)
U-Boats: History, Development and Equipment, 1914-45 by David Miller (Conway Maritime Press, 2000)

Originally posted by RN7
Allied Shipping losses in Atlantic
1940: 3,654,500 tons
1941: 3,295,900 tons
1942: 6,150,340 tons
1943: 2,170,400 tons
1944: 505,700 tons
1945: 366,800 tons

Response by aspqrz from Tarrant
Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: ~500,000 tons
1940: ~2,380,000 tons
1941: ~2,300,000 tons
1942: ~6,600,000 tons
1943: ~2,600,000 tons
1944: ~650,000 tons
1945: ~275,000 tons

Further data from Miller (who, unlike Tarrant, gives losses by Calendar year)

Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: 509,321
1940: 2,435,586
1941: 2,235, 674
1942: 5,760,485
1943: 2,036,674
1944: 371,698
1945: 256,574

The losses you cite for 1940 and 41 are still way over the odds.

So. Which of the many books you mention are your figures from The ones I have highlighted are all, except one, very outdated and that may be where the discrepancy comes from.

Volume 2 of Roskill is available online, for example, and its figures for 1942 are within a believable range (depending on whether the include losses to the Japanese or not) ... so where did the weird figures for 1940 + 1941 come from Specific book, please.

Phil

[aspqrz]

No they don't

So you say ... based on your unsupported personal assertions.

Please specify which books don't say which specific things.

Phil

[aspqrz]

RN7 said
But I thought they built 1,168 He-177's from 1942.

1169 or 1137 according to Wikipedia to the end of August 44, when production ceased. Which means that the numbers are suspect because of Speer's known fiddling with actual production figures.

964 or so of the -A3 and -A5 models which had slightly reduced chances of their engines roman candling. Remember the more than 50% operational failure rate of the 14 that tried to bomb the UK

I am sure you do.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally posted by RN7
Not from my sources

Which you fail to cite.

AR-234 range, 1630 klicks (halve it for the ~800 klicks operational radius). From Complete Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2.

Confirmed at ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234

http://www.airvectors.net/avar234.html

http://www.aviation-history.com/arado/234.html

... and many many more.

By people who know the difference between maximum range and operational radius.

Phil

[RN7]

Right aspqrz I am going to say this to you publically as I don't believe in going behind people backs as has been done before on this board when there are problems.

I do not like your patronising tone and I don't like your insults. I have had heated discussions with many others on this board, but they have always been amicable and civil and I always have the utmost respect for the opinions of the other members. But I will not sit here and listen to your consistent lack of respect for my intelligence and knowledge or any more of your childish insults.

I have complained to Kato about your conduct and you are the first person that I ever had to complain about on this board and that I think says it all.

[Legbreaker]

So just cite your sources RN7 and prove him wrong! Surely it can't be that hard
Isn't that what adults do when they disagree

However, I do agree aspqrz's tone has become somewhat...abrasive, but perhaps that's because he's felt like he's been bashing his head against the same brick wall trying to get you to cite your sources